| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> What are the criteria for morally responsible use of force?Question: What are the criteria for morally responsible use of force!? I'm watching an "In Depth" exploration of the work of George Weigle, a Catholic theologian who has written on the Catholic philosophy of war and peace:
http://www!.booktv!.org/program!.aspx!?Progr!.!.!. That is one view of the criteria for morally responsible use of force, but I offer it as a general area of inquiry, i!.e!. I would not limit your answer to criteria based on Catholic theologyWww@QuestionHome@Com Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: For those that are too stupid to know that morality, is by definition, an excepted criteria for the limitations between right and wrong, it is sometimes difficult to explain it to them!. There seems to be no cure for stupid!. Ill-informed, undereducated, uneducated and ignorant can all be cured!. It does require one with the knowledge, and the wisdom to use it, to explain facts to them in a comprehensible manner, so they may have their own Epiphany, proclaim Eureka, I understand!. But not stupid, the facts keep getting in the way!. In the days of the great wars between invading enemies and the defenders of freedom, it was considered morally responsible to use such force as could be brought to bear, to defeat the invader!. Now, in the 21st century, we feel it more morally responsible to use only that force that can get the job done with as little collateral damage as possible!.Www@QuestionHome@Com as a general inquiry, "morally" has no meaning!. One school of morality will have no restrictions whatsoever, while another will have you wear a mask to prevent doing violence to insects, and everything in between!. there is no standardWww@QuestionHome@Com It is a saying that "EVERY THING IS FARE IN LOVE AND WAR" Some times the word 'moral' has different meaning, depending upon situation!. If a force applied to save several life, would you say that this is not right!?Www@QuestionHome@Com I really dunno i am not a scholar but all i know all forces are for good deeds and not for bloodshed or bad things doing!.!.!. and passing these forces to the right candidates are very important!.!.!.!.!.!.!.otherwise another hilter again!.Www@QuestionHome@Com The Founding Fathers considered "individual sovereignty" to be "unalienable!." I wish they had used "individual sovereignty" instead!. It makes your question simpler to understand!. Since all men are unalienably endowed with individual sovereignty, the morally responsible use of force is that no man/woman may initiate the use of it!. To use it defensively is another matter, and may be defined in law!. But it does not necessarily take law to see when one person has clearly initiated the use of force; e!.g!., I've got a black eye, and no one saw me do anything to you!. When it is not clear who initiated the use of force, then again it goes to court!. "The clause, "to possess, claim, and use, anything as one's own", defines more closely the object of right!. Justice assigns to each person his own (suum cuique)!.!.!. "The right of which we have hitherto been speaking is individual right, to which the obligation of commutative justice corresponds!.!.!. "But, if the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State, He must also will the means necessary for its maintenance and the attainment of its objects!. This will can be found only in the right of the State to demand from its members what is necessary for the general good!. It must be authorized to make laws to punish violations of such, and in general to arrange everything for the public welfare, while, on their side, the members must be under the obligation corresponding to this right!." New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia http://www!.newadvent!.org/cathen/13055c!.h!.!.!. One of the things the State obligates its citizens to is that they will respect "individual right(s), to which the obligation of commutative justice corresponds!.!.!."Www@QuestionHome@Com |